The Allahabad High Court has held that when a tenant challenges a composite rent decree covering eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits, the appeal must be valued according to the liability actually challenged before the Rent Tribunal.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava dismissed a petition challenging an order that required the tenant to pay additional court fee on the decretal amount, including accrued or ascertainable mesne profits.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from proceedings concerning three adjoining shops in Varanasi. The Rent Authority, by its order dated February 19, 2026, directed the petitioner to vacate the premises and also made him liable for arrears of rent and mesne profits at the rate of ₹2,000 per day.
The petitioner appealed before the Rent Tribunal under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. He deposited ₹7 lakh and paid court fee equivalent to the amount paid when the original proceedings were instituted.
The landlady objected, arguing that the appeal was deficient because court fee had not been calculated on the entire decretal liability. The Rent Tribunal accepted the objection and directed the petitioner to make good the deficiency.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined Section 39 of the 2021 Act alongside the Court Fees Act, 1870. It held that the provision does not mean that the court fee in an appeal must always remain identical to the fee paid in the original proceedings.
The Court explained that appellate valuation depends upon the “subject-matter in dispute in appeal”. Where an appellant challenges the decree in its entirety, the valuation ordinarily extends to the liability he seeks to avoid.
The Bench also distinguished future mesne profits from liability that has already accrued or become capable of precise calculation. Once such liability becomes part of the decree and is challenged in appeal, it forms part of the subject matter for determining court fee.
Decision
The Court held that the Rent Tribunal had correctly directed the petitioner to make good the deficient court fee. It found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the Tribunal’s order.
The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition and directed that there would be no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Arif Khan v. Smt. Roshan Jahan
Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 8728 of 2026
Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Decision Date: July 28, 2026
